Here are the facts. High Point Church, a non-denominational church in Arlington, Texas, had been praying for Cecil Sinclair after Cecil’s brother Lee (the only member of the Sinclair family who was a member of the church) requested prayer for his brother who had been awaiting a heart transplant.

When Cecil Sinclair’s health became critical last week, the family called a staff member from the church to be with them at the hospital. In the hospital, in the moments immediately following Mr. Sinclair’s death, the family asked the staff member if the church would be open to holding a memorial service for their loved one. The staff member assured them the church would be available to help the family in any way appropriate, a response any pastor would give in that situation.

Cecil was not a member of High Point Church, yet this church selflessly and sacrificially ministered to his family in the wake of his death, preparing and delivering food for the family and one hundred relatives and friends, along with many other expressions of kindness. The church offered to produce a video retrospective of Mr. Sinclair’s life for use during the memorial service. When the family provided the pictures to the church it was then that the church learned of their intention to make the memorial service a celebration of Cecil Sinclair’s gay lifestyle. According to a statement on the High Point Church Web site, one of the photos provided by the family showed a man touching another man inappropriately, along with other unsuitable photos.

The family also requested that “an associate of an openly homosexual choir” officiate at the service and that the homosexual choir sing during the service. “It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church—which is not our policy to allow,” the statement on the church’s Web site said. After initially agreeing to host the memorial service, the church informed the family it could no longer do so based on the direction the family wanted to take it. The church then secured—and paid for—another location for the memorial service, which the family declined. The church also produced the memorial video without the inappropriate photos.

Contrary to the mainstream media reports, High Point Church did not refuse to host the funeral of a gay man. The church refused on biblical principle to allow a celebration of the homosexual lifestyle in its sanctuary, a decision most theologically sound churches would make under similar circumstances.

It’s not surprising that the mainstream media would misrepresent the facts. But the response of some in Christian media has been even more disappointing. High Point Church and its leaders are being accused by Christians of not showing love to the family by not hosting a celebration of Cecil Sinclair’s gay lifestyle. I suppose visiting Cecil in the hospital, sitting with his family after he died, preparing meals for the family, paying the rent on an alternative venue and producing an appropriate memorial video don’t qualify as “showing love” to the family.

Other critics of High Point Church are calling it a “missed opportunity” for the church to reach out to the gay community. Still others have suggested that, because homosexuality is a sin like any other sin, the church’s decision not to host a gay man’s memorial would prohibit it from holding memorial services for anyone because, after all, we are all sinners.

These people are missing the point. The church did not refuse to host the memorial service because Cecil Sinclair was gay. They refused to host the memorial service because the family was turning it into a celebration of the man’s sin—his homosexual lifestyle. Churches and ministers bury sinners every day. But we don’t highlight their sin on the big screen while we’re doing it. We exalt Christ. We proclaim the gospel. And we celebrate the triumph of the cross over sin and death—none of which the family had in mind for Cecil Sinclair’s memorial service.

High Point Church’s principled and biblical decision was the right one, evidenced not only by just how unpopular it is with the mainstream media, but also by the knee-jerk and ill-informed response of today’s culturally-savvy, but often biblically illiterate Christians

upright left, the typical example of right-wing behavior of castagation without knowing the facts, makes a point of name calling to make up for not being able to win a point.

Now he then asserts that the antebellum South who supported slavery drawing moral and legal support from the Fundamentalist Christian movement in the South who used their Bibles not unlike the Nazi’s who used their Bibles to condeme racial tolerance were in point of fact… Democrats!

How right you are there upright. They were. And if you’d paid attention to the preceding conversations, you would then have read that in point of fact the old Southern Democrats who supported slavery and who used the Fundamentalist Christians just as Hitler used the Church in Germany. However, since the Civil War the fact is that the republicans have turned into the old Southern Democrats. The likes of Trent Lott, and particularly Strom Thurmond are excellant examples. Unable to carry on their racial bigotry from a Democrat party ever increasingly holding beliefs of the Northern Abolitionists, and eventually jumped ship to the republicans and their anti-minority agenda. Felt just like home no doubt.

Those Southern Democrats now turned republican are indeed as you pointed out upright, the true holders of hatred and bigotry. While the Democrats have now become the holders of racial tolerance.

And your, not ready for prime time attempt to divert the discussion away from the issue and towards what my particular party affiliation or Church membership might be does not merit any points I’m afraid.

Over and over here in the thread, comments from the righties have stated that the family wanted to celebrate the deceased’s “lifestyle”, supposedly referring to statements from the Church which say that the family supplied pictures of the deceased’s life with males hugging and kissing.

Ignoring ofcourse, the fact that the deceased’s sister has repeatedly denied this fact and stated that no such pictures were ever given to this Church.

So the braying over and over again, first that it’s the soldier’s fault for being like every poster in here and sinning, and then secondly that it’s his family’s fault for want to hold a quote, celebration of his lifestyle are complete false distortions just as one would expect from the fundamentalist right.

We support the troops, ah, but not the Gay ones. Oh, and not the Democrat ones. Not the Atheist ones. And not them Mexican ones. Well no we don’t particularly support them Indian ones neither. I guess we have to support the black one’s but we’d rather not. Oh and those ones who saw Michael Moore’s movie, no we don’t support them either.

Such Patriots!

———

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I wanted to pass along my words of congratulations for refusing to hold a memorial service for avowed homosexual Cecil Howard Sinclair as reported in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20221295/?GT1=10252

I’m sure that Cecil could care less. But there’s no better way of showing your love for his surviving family than denying them this one last tribute. That’s what I call principle.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My friend has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them as in Lev.24:10-16? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

I’m hoping to publish your answers in the press for the world to see how you glorify God’s word without exception, as you have done with the Sinclair family.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 11:43 am

Is Mr. Sinclair’s soul going to hell because of his “sin,” or do you not know? Is it possible that he will go to heaven, and if so, why do you think God would allow that?

Comment #1 says it all…..

Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 11:18 am

And that, IMO, is what is wrong with most people, and most churches, nowadays. People don’t go to hear the word of God; they go to be seen. They think if they can get their 60 minutes of “religion” each week, they’ll be fine. People in my wife’s church get angry if the services exceed 1 hour; they grumble and complain, and some have been known to get up and walk out when the hour’s up.

As for playgrounds and projection screens and weight rooms and exercise rooms…people are drawn to the churches for the wrong reasons.

People need to go to church for their own spiritual needs, and not because if they don’t show up, other people in the church or community will look down on them. I have a friend who was so brainwashed by his church and their members that as a 25 year old adult he hoped that no one from his church would see him walk into a liquor store and buy a 6 pack of beer. He was a casual drinker…not an alcoholic…and I doubt he ever took a drink until long after he was out of college.

It’s just all messed up.

I wonder if Rev. Gary also thought that Mr. Sinclair’s soul was gay? Do you?

Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 11:37 am

Love for the family doesn’t make it ok for the church to go against the Bible. We can’t change God’s laws just because they are difficult for us. It’s not the church’s law, it’s God’s. We all have our temptations. We all choose whether to give in to them or not. The deceased lived a homosexual lifestyle. One’s soul isn’t gay or straight. One chooses to live a gay or straight lifestyle. ;)

In 2000 my Dad’s brother passed away. He was divorced and remarried. His two sons (from his first marriage) were there. So was his ex-wife. By her presence there, do you think the funeral services were a celebration of divorce? I read somewhere that God did not like divorce.

Another question: do you look at some people and assume they are gay due to the way they look or act? Have you seen a picture of Rev. Gary?

Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 11:27 am

That has already been addressed WC. If it was commonly known that the man was an adulterer and that the photos were of his fellow cheaters, I absolutely believe the church would have had a problem with it. It would be the same situation. The divorce question is different. If the divorce didn’t result from Biblically allowed circumstances, it was a sin. And if the family insisted on making an issue of his divorce, I’m sure the church would have the same reaction. The issue remains that the family insisted on elements in the service that condoned the lifestyle. ;)

Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 11:03 am

Yes, it was his homosexuality that was the “problem.” His lifestyle that the family supposedly wanted to celebrate WAS homosexuality. Rev. Gary said that it was not that they didn’t love the family. Fine. That “love” that they had for the family should have trumped everything else about the situation.

I wonder if Rev. Gary also thought that Mr. Sinclair’s soul was gay? Do you?

Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 9:01 am

Most of them were Democrats, so it must have been about the time the Democrat party stopped opposing civil rights for blacks. Oh wait, you’re not a Democrat are ya, brunie? Oops! ;)

Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 1:59 am

Let’s consider the same situation although with another “sin.”

Suppose this man had been an adulterer who was divorced, and pictures taken of him with a few of his, er, girlfriends were included in the video presentation, would you agree that the service would celebrate the immoral lifestyle he lived? I’ll bet you good money that Rev. Gary wouldn’t have have even considered canceling that service.

In 2000 my Dad’s brother passed away. He was divorced and remarried. His two sons (from his first marriage) were there. So was his ex-wife. By her presence there, do you think the funeral services were a celebration of divorce? I read somewhere that God did not like divorce.

Another question: do you look at some people and assume they are gay due to the way they look or act? Have you seen a picture of Rev. Gary?

Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 11:11 am

That church absolutely could hold services in a tent. And they would get significantly fewer people into church. A church is supposed to reach out to the lost. People are soft these days and expect comfort. You get more people into a church with comfortable seats, air conditioning, and programs for children. I can’t comment on your wife’s church. There are good churches and not so good. That doesn’t change the fact that a church has a responsibility to point out sin and to refrain from an appearance that sin is condoned just because it is widely practiced. Wrong is wrong. ;)

Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 9:40 am

Brunie, I’ll change my opinion on this as soon as you can show me a conservative Christian church in which members have funerals in which photos are displayed representing their unrepented sins. Got a link to photos of adulterers with their fellow cheaters. Pedophiles with their victims? Theives with their loot? And of course you’ll provide evidence that the families believe these activities are acceptable and the church goes along with it. Otherwise, your claim is groundless, bud. ;)

Just yesterday morning, the preacher in the church we attend (my wife is a member; I am not, nor do I desire to be) referenced a letter to the editor in our local paper that said tattoos were the work of the devil and that God would punish people for scarring their bodies. The preacher called the letter-writer an “idiot.” It rather pissed me off. He did, however, say something about the man obviously had never read the New Testament and referenced something about loving our bodies. The idiot comment could have been left out. He also could have shown a little compassion for the man since he thought he was so wrong.

Another thing that bothers me is that this new preacher has had the audacity to include this statement in a section in the weekly church bulletin:

“What you really worship is defined by what you give (checkbook)…”

Yep…the almighty dollar. You see it in these megachurches that are so freaking big they put aircraft hangars to shame. They build a sanctuary that rivals most theaters, filling it with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the latest electronic equipment, projection screens, musical instruments for the band, PA systems, etc. All to impress God. Yeah, right. This same church could hold services under a tent in the middle of a field and have the same impact on a person’s soul. But it wouldn’t be as impressive to the public nor to the members of the church. People are supposed to go to church to feed their souls, not to be impressed by the latest gadgetry.

Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 10:56 am

The problem wasn’t that the man was a homosexual. The probelm was that his family wanted a service that celebrated his lifestyle, which would of course make it appear that the church condoned the behavior. It wasn’t his homosexuality, it was the kind of service the family wanted. ;)

Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 8:42 am

Heh, heh, heh. You get a little ticked when ya can’t get a rise out of someone eh, brunie? No, my lost friend, you have no ability to anger me. Self control, brunie, self control. Buddy, you are the only one saying I’m without sin. The fact remains that the church would not hold a service that celebrated a sinful lifestyle. That’s the one and only issue, bud. But you are persistent, I’ll give ya that! ;)

Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 1:57 am

I would imagine the reason is because the family didn’t realize that being a heterosexual was a pre-requisite to agreeing to hold a funeral service. They likely thought that, you know, being gay would take a back seat to wanting to honor the life of a person who served his country and who obviously was loved by many people despite the lifestyle he led.